HD 7126 


, N4 
1920 
Mar 


REPORT AND PROTEST 


Copy 1 


TO THE 


Governor, the Legislature and the People 


OF THE 


State of New York 


Danger Confronting Popular Government 



and the so-called 


New York League for Americanism 


A Powerful and Perilous Influence 

Backed by the Upstate Associated 
Manufacturers and Merchants (“The 
Associated Industries of New York 
State”), this Combination Is a Men¬ 
ace to Progress Through Orderly 
and Intelligent Legislative Methods, 


❖ 


BY THE 


NEW YORK STATE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 


h 


MARCH, 1920 













I 

NEW YORK STATE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 

CHAIRMAN: MRS. FRANK A. VANDERLIP 


VICE-CHAIRMEN ; 

Mrs. Gordon Norrie 

Mrs. George d. Pratt 
• Mrs. Dexter P. Rumsey 

Mrs. Samuel Bens 


TREASURER RECORDING SECRETARY 

MRS. CHARLES NOEL EDGE MISS KATHRYN H. STARBUCK 


CORRESPONDING SECRETARY 

MRS. VANDERBILT WEBB 


DIRECTORS 


MRS. RAYMOND BROWN MISS LILLIAN HUFFCUT 

MISS MARY E. DREIER MRS. JAMES LEES LAIDLAW 


Main Headquarters 

303 FIFTH AVENUE 

NEW YORK 



T of i ) 0 

MAH 29 1920 






3 




REPORT AND PROTEST 

To the Governor, the Legislature, and the People 
of the State of New York, By the New York 
State League of Women Voters. 


A Report to the Governor, Legislature and People of the 
State of New York Upon the Danger Confronting Popular 
Government in the Legislature and Particularly in the 
Assembly of the State, Arising Out of an Organized Lobby 
and Propaganda, Known as the Daly Lobby and Propaganda, 
Backed by the Associated Manufacturers and Merchants 
(‘‘The Associated Industries of New York State ”) and 
Promoted by the So-called New York League for Ameri¬ 
canism—the Combination Being One That Exerts an In¬ 
fluence Powerful and Perilous to Orderly and Intelligent 
Public Opinion at Large and to Legislative Opinion at 
Albany. 


A n INVESTIGATION undertaken by the New York State 
League of Women Voters has disclosed a condition in the 
L public affairs of New York State of which the State’s respon¬ 
sible elected officers and the public generally should be informed. 
This condition has come to our attention through a report whose 
findings are of grave significance. After consideration of the evi¬ 
dence on which this report is based and after due deliberation, we 
have decided to make public our findings. 

Our investigation was undertaken not with the object of sup¬ 
porting any particular measures but to inform ourselves why such 
measures as we supported during the last legislative session could 
not get, particularly in the Assembly, consideration impartially on 
their merits. To inform the public of the results of our investiga¬ 
tion transcends in importance, we believe, any other service that 
the New York State League of Women Voters might render at 
this time. 

We have found that there exists in New York State a danger¬ 
ous subversion not only of legislative opinion, but of public 
opinion as well. We have found a condition by virtue of which 
it is evident that it has been made exceedingly difficult for any 


3 




constructive social or industrial measure to get adequate and 
unbiassed consideration before either the public or the legislative 
opinion of the State, and we have found that the influences at 
work so far from being invisible, are flagrantly and cynically 
open and are rapidly becoming notorious. 

We call the attention of our legislators and of the public gen¬ 
erally to the fact that propagandism as created and financed by 
certain powerful, vested interests is assuming a highly potent, 
though unregulated, political and governmental function. Propa¬ 
gandism would seem, in fact, to be taking the place of political 
“ bossism ” such as ruled the State ten or twenty years ago. Since 
the people now have more or less direct control of party political 
machinery it has become impossible for one or two or three “ bosses ” 
at the top to command legislative action at will without regard 
for the possible resentment of the people. For the support of 
various little bosses, in or out of the Legislature, certain special 
interests have inaugurated a regime of pseudo-patriotic propaganda 
which has been used to confuse the people as a whole with regard 
to the real nature of such legislation as these particular interests 
may choose to consider “ undesirable.” Phases of this propaganda 
have even been used in a manner calculated to confuse the people 
as to what is and what is not reasonable and constitutional progress. 


I 

Concerning the Associated Manufac¬ 
turers and Merchants, Their Aims and 
Methods. 


T PIE DOMINANT obstructionist influence is an up state or¬ 
ganization of some 1,600 members, the so-called up state Asso¬ 
ciated Manufacturers and Merchants, which has headquarters at 
Buffalo and which is just now changing its name to “ The Asso¬ 
ciated Industries of New York State.” 

We are reliably informed that as early as last August this 
Association had raised a fund of between $100,000 and $200,000 
for propaganda purposes and that this fund has been used for the 
support of the so-called New York League for Americanism, an 
organization which,, though extremely active in “ accelerating ” pub- 

4 



lie opinion, has, in fact, no patriotic nor constructive objects be¬ 
yond the particular and selfish ends of its sponsors. 

The propaganda of this so-called League for Americanism, 
conducted under the pretense of patriotism, has been calculated to 
arouse, by unscrupulously false and misleading statements, popular 
prejudice against and misunderstanding of such a measure as that 
providing for workmen’s cooperative illness insurance as well as 
other measures of human welfare. In view of information obtained 
by us we believe that this has been done, not primarily because of 
impracticability in the measures themselves, but with the object of 
making the measure an “ issue ” and of furthering the primary ob¬ 
ject of certain up-State manufacturers to obstruct as long as pos¬ 
sible any progressive industrial legislation in this State and to 
establish a precedent at this time against such legislation—in a word, 
to make “ horrible example ” of such measures and their advocates. 

It can scarcely be forgotten that leading members of this Manu¬ 
facturers’ Association vigorously opposed the Workmen’s Compen¬ 
sation Law only a few years ago, though its members now subscribe 
to the measure in principle and admit that in operation it has 
bestowed benefits upon employers as well as upon injured work¬ 
men. It can scarcely be forgotten that in April of last year certain 
up-State employers protested at a joint committee hearing at the 
Capitol that the eight-hour law for women workers meant hard¬ 
ship, if not bankruptcy, for textile mills in the Utica district. They 
made a similar protest to Speaker Thaddeus C. Sweet at a con¬ 
ference at which they “ commended him for refusing to let the 
eight-hour bill leave the Committee on Rules of which he was 
chairman.” It was understood even then that the ruling legislative 
organization was undertaking to “ protect ” the textile industry of 
the State at the risk of alienating organized labor and the women 
voters; and since then it has been demonstrated that the claims 
upon which this demand for “ protection ” was based were false 
and groundless, for within a short time after inducing the legisla¬ 
tive leaders “ to take their view of textile industrial conditions, 
the employers voluntarily assume the handicap, as they called it, of 
a shorter workday, not merely for women workers, as the eight- 
hour bill provided, but for both men and women.” 

With regard to the manner in which these same employers thus 
demonstrated the falseness of their intolerant and arbitrary opposi¬ 
tion to this eight-hour industrial legislation for women, we quote 
from the New York Evening Post, July 7, 1919, which, referring 
to the majority legislative leaders, said: They “ feel that they have 
made their sacrifice, only to be betrayed by the men they sought to 
serve.” 


5 


II 


Concerning Mark Daly, Lobbyist for the 
Associated Manufacturers and Merchants 
Whose Activities Are Increasingly Men¬ 
acing to the Welfare of the State. 


M ARK A. DALY, lobbyist of the Associated Manufacturers and 
Merchants, backed by the funds and forces of obstruction 
and by his relations with certain influential members of the Legis¬ 
lature, aims to prevent the impartial consideration of such legis¬ 
lative measures as he sees fit to condemn. His methods are intended 
to defeat such measures before they even reach the floor of the 
Assembly. 

Daly’s influence and the influence of the Daly lobby are sustained 
by his misleading and inflammatory propaganda among manufac¬ 
turers of the State and by the propaganda at large of his newly- 
created and pseudo-patriotic ally, the so-called League for Ameri¬ 
canism. 

We do not question the right of the Associated Manufacturers 
and Merchants to be heard at Albany. They have the same right as 
any other group to offer fair criticism, suggestions and intelligent 
information regarding proposed legislation. We do not doubt that 
originally the Association may have been established for mutual, 
perhaps even for public service, but we know that the members of 
this Association are busy men. We would not be surprised to learn 
that almost unconsciously they have allowed certain of their respon¬ 
sibilities as citizens to slip away from them into the hands of a 
lobbyist whose domineering tactics are more dangerous than the 
members of this Manufacturers’ Association have had time to 
realize. 

We ask the members of this Association seriously to consider 
whether the Daly lobby, by bungling obstruction to legislation that 
would create a basis of common interest and cooperation between 
employers and employees, is not jeopardizing their own best 
interests. Ultimately, we have no doubt, they will come to see 
that the methods of the Daly lobby are a kind of sabotage that 
is dangerous because likely to provoke some kind of retaliation on 
the part of the large public whose interests and welfare he jeopard¬ 
izes. 

It would seem futile to point out that Daly is a man of narrow 
vision, and in this matter we let his words speak for themselves. 


6 



Through his personal and official propagandist organ, The Monitor, 
in one of the editorials designated by Daly as “ Monitorials,” he 
recently informed the members of the Associated Manufacturers 
and Merchants that a woman candidate was opposing Speaker 
Sweet for election to the Assembly from Oswego, that another 
woman was running in Erie county and that several women were 
on the ticket in the metropolitan district. With reference to this 
situation, Daly asked the following questions: 

“ Who says women are not going to take politics seri¬ 
ously? How seriously will politics take women?” 

And thereupon he offered by analogy a proposal which at once 
reveals the calibre and character of the man: 


“ IF WE WERE ASKED TO DRAW AN ANAL¬ 
OGY WE’D SAY THAT IF WE HAD A FRACTIOUS 
HORSE, AND AFTER WE’D FED HIM WELL, 
PAMPERED HIM, CODDLED HIM, TREATED 
HIM WITH EVERY KINDNESS AND AT¬ 
TEMPTED TO TALK REASON AT HIM, HE 
STILL STOOD UP ON HIS HIND LEGS AND 
PAWED AT THE AIR, WE’D GET A RAWHIDE 
QUIRT AND HIRE THE BEST HORSEMAN WE 
KNEW AND THEN SCIENTIFICALLY AND 
FIRMLY LICK THE HELL RIGHT OUT OF HIM.” 


Ill 


Concerning the Contact of the Daly Lobby 
and Propaganda with the Legislature. 


E FOUND from the very beginning of the legislative session 



vv last year that Speaker Sweet’s attitude and activities were 
exactly in line with the demands of the Daly lobby. The methods 
of this lobby and its control over legislation may be most strikingly 
revealed by the manner in which the bill amending the Workmen’s 
Compensation Law was defeated last year. 

This bill, known as the Martin bill, “ to amend the Workmen’s 
Compensation Law, generally,” was drawn by the State Industrial 
Commission after a conference with both the Associated Manu¬ 
facturers and Merchants and with the State Federation of Labor. 
In this conference Daly participated as a representative of the As¬ 
sociated Manufacturers and Merchants and agreed to the amend¬ 
ments proposed. 


7 



The bill was introduced in the Assembly on February 10, 1919, 
by Assemblyman Martin, then as now chairman of the Judiciary 
committee. The understanding was that since the measure had 
been agreed upon in conference it was to be acted upon at once, 
but after considerable delay the measure had not been reported out 
of committee. When Chairman Martin was asked the reason for 
this, he explained to supporters of the measure in conference that 
Mr. Daly had said the bill was “ not to be moved.’’ 

Chairman Martin was then told of the agreement reached in the 
conference in which Daly had participated. Daly himself was 
again brought into conference. He explained himself by alleging 
that the bill was not as agreed upon in conference. Representatives 
of the State Industrial Commission then went over the bill with 
Daly, item by item, together with the minutes of the conference in 
which the bill had been agreed upon, and the lobbyist was forced 
to admit that the measure was as agreed upon to the last detail, 
though certain changes proposed at the first conference by Daly 
were now conceded by representatives of the State Federation of 
Labor. 

With Daly, representatives of the group that had conferred 
on the measure then went to Speaker Sweet. It was explained 
to the Speaker that the bill had been agreed upon by all parties, 
and the Speaker said that such being the case the bill would of 
course go through at once. All parties to the conference then 
withdrew from the Speaker’s room, but Daly immediately re¬ 
turned. After this conference the bill was still held in committee. 

Some days later when Chairman Martin of the Judiciary com¬ 
mittee was told that unless the bill was reported out those interested 
in the measure would be advised of the apparent effort to kill the 
bill in committee, he said he would see what could be done. Within 
two hours after this observation was made to Mr. Martin, the bill 
was on the floor of the Assembly. Thus, the bill which had been 
introduced on February 10, passed the Assembly on April 17, so 
that it went to the Senate two days before the end of the session. 
In the Senate the bill was tabled and on the last day of the session 
was blocked by being referred to the Senate Judiciary committee. 

Other legislation to which the Daly lobby was opposed was 
kept from reaching the floor of the Assembly last year by discredited 
parliamentary devices under the control of the Speaker of the 
Assembly. Speaker Sweet invoked the archaic form of caucus 
rule to this end, and the extent to which he uses the power of his 
office to exact conformity on the part of Assemblymen to his no¬ 
tions as to what legislation should be allowed to reach the floor 
of the Assembly should be clear from what follows. 


8 


When Assemblyman Brady, who was last year a member of the 
Labor and Industries committee and is this year chairman of the 
same committee, was asked why he had not bolted the majority 
caucus that voted to hold in committee certain legislation which the 
Daly lobby was fighting, we are informed that he made the follow¬ 
ing assertion: 

If* I had bolted I would have ruined my political future and 
wouldn’t be appointed to any good committee next year. Assembly- 
man Slacer who bolted the caucus will be 4 demoted.’ He won’t 
get any important committee assignments next year.” 

Assemblyman Slacer is a fourth-year assemblyman from Erie 
county. Realizing the discipline to which Mr. Slacer would be 
subject this year at the hands of Speaker Sweet, certain influential 
party friends of Mr. Slacer caused an intercession to be made with 
the Speaker before the opening of the Legislature, in Mr. Slacer’s 
behalf. Mr. Slacer desired to be assigned to the “ Insurance ” and 
“ Cities ” committees and to such other committees as the Speaker 
might see fit. 

Mr. Slacer’s desire was denied. Though he would normally 
be entitled to a chairmanship of one of the Assembly committees 
in view of his length of service and the strong support he has in 
his own district, he has been assigned by the Speaker to the “ Cities ” 
committee and to “ Electricity, Water and Gas,” and to member¬ 
ship on no third committee at all. His assignments this year are 
obviously not to be regarded as important as those of a first-year 
man from Erie county who has been assigned to three committees 
including the “ Insurance ” committee for which Mr. Slacer had 
a preference. The appointments of a number of other Assembly- 
men from western New York who have served no longer than Mr. 
Slacer are regarded as more important than Mr. Slacer’s assign¬ 
ments. 

Regarding the matter of his committee assignments, we are in¬ 
formed that Mr. Slacer recently said: 

“ I think my poor appointments are definitely traceable to my 
action last year in voting for discharge of committee on the Eight- 
hour day and Living Wage bills, after the caucus, into which I 
did not go, had voted against letting these measures out of com¬ 
mittee.” 

If the people of this State would know how affairs are to-day 
conducted in the Assembly, the following instance is also pertinent. 
We are informed that in conversation with a representative of the 
Consumers’ League of Buffalo, Assemblyman Zimmerman explained 
why he did not withdraw from the Sweet caucus on the Eight Hour 
and Living Wage bills. We are informed that Assemblyman Zim- 


9 


merman declared that if he had refused to join with the caucus any 
bills that he himself had introduced “ wouldn’t have stood any 
show.” We are informed further that he cited in illustration a bill 
to provide a park or playground for Tonawanda which the people 
of that locality very much wanted. With regard to that bill we 
are informed that he said if he had refused to join with the caucus 
it would certainly be “ sacrificed.” 

Throughout the session last year we were not unaware of cer¬ 
tain moves made by influential members of the Assembly that were 
likely to result in the defeat of legislation opposed by the Daly 
lobby. In supporting certain legislation we desired that the meas¬ 
ures should be considered for what they were: non-partisan pro¬ 
posals. It was therefore suggested to Majority Leader Adler that 
he should designate the Republican Assemblyman to introduce the 
Living Wage bill for women, which was being introduced in the 
Senate by a Democrat. Majority Leader Adler said that he and 
Speaker Sweet would decide upon the member who should intro¬ 
duce the bill. To introduce this measure Speaker Sweet designated 
Assemblyman Bewley, who was last year Chairman of the Assem¬ 
bly Labor and Industries committee. 

Knowing Bewley’s anti-labor record, we were exceedingly re¬ 
luctant to agree to his handling this measure, but under the circum¬ 
stances felt obliged to consent. It was Adler who endeavored to 
give reassurance that the measure would get a “ square deal,” but 
at no time did we expect a square deal for this measure from 
Bewley, who had obviously been designated by the Speaker and 
whose intimate relations with Daly and the Daly lobby were well 
known. 

Regarding Bewley we were informed not only of his anti¬ 
labor record, but of other facts that were matters of common 
knowledge. It was commonly known that, during his legislative 
career, Bewley was the intimate associate of Daly and it was 
commonly reported and believed, too, that this man, designated 
by Speaker Sweet to handle the measure to which the Daly lobby 
was opposed, was the room mate of Daly, sharing an apartment 
with him at the Hotel Ten Eyck. 

We do not object to the obvious intimacy that exists between 
Daly and influential members of the Legislature. We do not object 
to Daly’s inviting the chairman of any legislative committee what¬ 
soever to share his hotel quarters. We do not object to Daly’s 
“ state dinners.” We object to none of these things, but we do 
object to a situation where members of the Legislature are put in 
a position of desiring to requite, by a hostile and partial attitude 


10 


regarding legislation that is the concern of and affects the welfare 
of the whole people, “ courtesies ” extended them by the Daly lobby. 

“ Playfellows,” we note, is the term employed by Daly to de¬ 
scribe certain members of the Legislature. In his editorial organ, 
The Monitor, Daly recently referred to the fact that “Buck” 
Bewley (sic) and another Assemblyman were no longer members 
of the Legislature, and in this connection he took occasion to ob¬ 
serve : 

“ These were desirable and gentle playfellows” 

Daly should know whether he has found them such. Our con¬ 
clusion is that “ desirable and gentle playfellows ” make undesirable 
and bad legislators. 

The autocratic parliamentary methods used by Speaker Sweet 
against the chief welfare measures last year were adopted ad¬ 
mittedly because it was generally believed that if the proposed 
measures reached the floor of the Assembly they would pass. In 
support of their position the Speaker and those most closely asso¬ 
ciated with him in the Assembly have asserted that their action was 
taken because of certain so-called petitions against the welfare bills. 
In view of this claim, it becomes necessary to give details of the 
circumstances under which signatures were obtained to the so-called 
petitions. 

These so-called petitions were circulated among the employing 
establishments of central New York at the instigation of the 
Daly lobby in response to the exigency that was considered to 
exist in the Assembly. Subtle methods of coercion were Used 
in getting the signatures to these so-called petitions. 

It appears that the signatures were attached in the first place 
to a petition against the measure providing for workmen’s coopera¬ 
tive illness insurance. At various times by various individuals, and 
particularly by Sweet himself in his campaign last fall, these so- 
called petitions have been referred to as evidence of an appeal by 
working men and women against welfare legislation generally. This 
collection of signatures has also been referred to as a “ test vote,” 
the results of which have been variously stated as 13,200 against 
and 112 for welfare legislation or 11,815 against and 112 for wel¬ 
fare legislation. In his campaign advertisements last fall Sweet 
declared that “ 12,000 women ” had petitioned against the “ welfare 
bills.” 

There is little doubt that, in the first instance, arrangements 
were made to accelerate the so-called petitions as an attack on 
the measure for workmen’s cooperative illness insurance partic¬ 
ularly and perhaps solely. There is no question but that at the 
time the so-called petitions were circulated representatives of 


11 


certain insurance interests opposed to any cooperative form of 
sickness insurance were especially active. Among these represen¬ 
tatives were insurance men who have been closely associated with 
the work of the Daly lobby, such as John L. Train of Utica 
and William Gale Curtis, who is president of the Insurance Eco¬ 
nomics Society of Detroit, an organization which was formed to 
fight non-commercial workmen’s sickness insurance and similar 
measures. We are further informed that in a debate before the 
Ohio Medical Society on May 7, 1919, Curtis, in trying to convince 
his audience that labor is opposed to the sickness insurance measure 
as proposed in New York State, distinctly gave his hearers the im¬ 
pression that he had participated personally in the collection of 
signatures to the so-called petitions circulated in Central New York. 
We are informed that he argued to this effect: 

“ We went to Utica and made a canvass of several 
plants and asked each man personally if he was for health 
insurance, and the result was 11,815 against the measure 
and 112 for it.” 

The signatures to the so-called petitions were obtained not 
only through the activity of men representing the insurance 
interests and the Daly lobby, but with the knowledge of majority 
members of the Assembly who needed support in view of the atti¬ 
tude they had arbitrarily taken against the chief welfare bills. 
Before the signatures to the so-called petitions were gathered, a 
member of the Assembly in referring to the fact that arrange¬ 
ments had been made to get the signatures for “ a mighty big 
petition,” declared that this would “ cinch ” the situation. In 
view of the discreditable use that is still being made of this col¬ 
lection of signatures, we here give in some detail a part of our 
information regarding the manner in which the signatures were 
obtained. 

When it became apparent last year that Sweet and his associates 
would need “ moral support ” in getting the majority caucus to 
vote against letting the welfare bills out of committee, the machinery 
of the Associated Manufacturers and Merchants was set in motion 
at the instigation of the Daly lobby. Telegrams and letters were 
sent to manufacturers in and near Utica to prepare them for 
the work that was to be done. For the object desired, haste was 
necessary, and the work of gathering the signatures was accom¬ 
plished in a few hours on a Monday morning and the result was 
sent to Speaker Sweet on the Empire State Express in time for his 
use in the caucus on Tuesday. 

The so-called petitions came in every case from the officers of 
the various plants and in no case originated with the employees. 

12 


On Monday morning, after Daly had deluged the manufacturers 
with telegrams and letters informing them of what was to be done, 
foremen and superintendents received instructions to go through 
the mills and get signatures from employees, and in this manner, 
we are informed, subtle methods of coercion were used. Many 
employees have been questioned as to the manner in which the so- 
called petitions were presented to them and as a result of this 
questioning we cite the following information: 

No effort was made on the part of the signature collectors 
to give fair and unbiassed information concerning the proposed 
measures. Much false information was given workers who were 
asked to sign. Many employees were told that the State under 
the proposed measure would compel them to hire certain doctors. 
In one plant a foreman took the poll, stating to employees that 
he opposed the measure and hoped they would also. This fore¬ 
man elaborated on the expense and did not inform employees that 
their wives were protected or that dentists’ bills were included as 
well as payment for time lost through illness. Similar methods were 
employed in other plants. The canvass was everywhere taken by 
individuals who were prejudiced in advance against the proposed 
legislation. In one instance in a certain factory in Utica where 
a number of Englishmen are employed, the so-called petition was 
put before employees with the remark: 

“ Here, you don’t want any of this damned Lloyd George insur¬ 
ance over here, do you ?” 

The so-called petition was circulated widely among the unor¬ 
ganized women in the textile mills, and the manner in which it was 
done, is clear from the statement made by one of them: 

“ They told me it would come out of my pay, and I signed be¬ 
cause I didn’t want to support some dago’s wife every time she 
had a baby.” 

We are informed that it was a common argument in presenting 
the so-called petition that if the measure was enacted the employees 
would “ have to support some dago’s wife every time she had a 
baby.” 

We are further informed that such pressure was brought to 
bear on the employees who were asked to sign that many of them 
feared they would lose their jobs if they did not sign. An em¬ 
ployee of a certain plant has said that he was discharged for 
refusing to sign. He asserted his independence and was dis¬ 
charged, we are informed, either because his independence was 
offensive or because the manner in which he expressed his indig¬ 
nation at being asked to sign was offensive. 

From the statement of a resident of Utica who was informed 


13 


by an Assemblyman on Sunday night that the petitions were to be 
circulated the following Monday morning in order to “ cinch ” the 
situation for the majority legislative leaders, we give the following: 

“ There is no doubt that the leaders like Speaker Sweet made 
a demand for this petition to bolster them up. That is tacitly 
admitted. There is no doubt that the workers knew little or 
nothing about the subject except what they had heard from 
propagandists like John L. Train (Secretary of the Utica Mutual 
Life Insurance Company) and others in the insurance business, 
who were very active at the time.” 

We are informed of the measures the Daly lobby has taken 
in concert with Babcock of the so-called “ League ” for Ameri¬ 
canism to maintain control over the present legislative session. 
We have observed the expansion of their joint control both by legis¬ 
lative influence and by widespread and misleading propaganda. 
It is plain to us that Daly and Babcock, by such aids and alliances 
as they find opportune, are assuming to impose upon this State 
a minority dictatorship. They are assuming to impose the polit¬ 
ical demands of their particular group regardless of the will of 
the majority either in the Legislature or in the State at large 
and by poisonous propaganda to destroy the very basis of intelli¬ 
gent and democratic government. 

IV 

Concerning the So-cailed NEW YORK 
LEAGUE for AMERICANISM Which 
Was Created by and is Financed by an 
Inner Circle of Prominent Members of 
the Associated Manufacturers and Mer¬ 
chants. The Active Director and Pro¬ 
moter of this “League” is C. D. Babcock, 
a Professional Accelerator of Public 
Opinion, Whose Methods Are Fast 
Becoming Notorious. 

T HE PROPAGANDIST organization which was created by cer¬ 
tain members of the Associated Manufacturers and Merchants 
and which has taken the deceptive name of the New York League 
for Americanism has headquarters at 471 South Salina street, Syra¬ 
cuse, and branch offices in Buffalo and New York City. 


14 



The Secretary and active director of this organization is one 
Carleton D. Babcock, a man. who has long been employed by 
certain insurance interests to wage propagandist warfare against 
any form of workmen’s cooperative illness insurance and other 
measures of human welfare. The treasurer of the so-called 
League for Americanism is C. A. Chase of Syracuse, formerly a 
president and now a vice-president of the Associated Manufacturers 
and Merchants. 

The so-called League for Americanism was founded by members 
of the upstate Manufacturers’ Association with the object of “ accel¬ 
erating ” public opinion against certain humanitarian legislative 
proposals. The reason for the adoption of its name is apparent. 
We are definitely informed that a certain upstate manufacturer 
who claims to have participated in the organization of the 
“ League ” has described the Americanism feature of it as a 
“ catspaw.” 

There is no question but that Babcock, the “ League’s ” pro¬ 
moter, has had long experience and is particularly skilled in the 
kind of propaganda sponsored by the so-called League for 
Americanism. He was brought to this State and hired to act as 
Secretary of the League after his fight in California on behalf 
of certain insurance interests against legislation similar to that 
proposed in New York State. He was brought to this State for 
propagandist warfare in spite of the fact that the methods he 
used in California resulted in protests and denunciation on the 
part of such citizens as had become innocently associated with him 
there. We are informed by affidavits on this subject that Bab¬ 
cock’s methods in California resulted in a “ wholesale repudiation ” 
of Babcock and his so-called California Research Society, with 
much criticism of Babcock on the part of those whose names had 
been used to support his work. 

By the same affidavits we are informed as follows: 

The organization Babcock created in California was known as 
the California Research Society of Social Economics, which had 
no other object than to make warfare against sickness insurance. 
In that campaign he was in the hire of the Insurance Economics 
Society of Detroit of which William Gale Curtis (who is also 
president of the National Casualty Company of Detroit) is the 
president. Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman, as “ an unattached expert in 
economics,” was one of Babcock’s advisers in the California cam¬ 
paign, and before the campaign was over it was discovered that 
Hoffman is the statistician of the Prudential Insurance Company of 
America, Newark, N. J. Babcock himself repeatedly cautioned his 


15 


associates against mentioning his California organization in connec¬ 
tion with the parent organization of Detroit. 

The Insurance Economics Society of Detroit is an organiza¬ 
tion of certain insurance interests to fight any legislative measure 
providing for non-commercial illness insurance and similar hu¬ 
manitarian proposals. It works secretly, “ donating ” organizers, 
who go into various States “ to align local interests, secure 
funds, form a list of vice-presidents, and wage the campaign by 
methods of press publicity, printed pamphlets, and a bureau of 
paid orators.” 

Babcock imparted information to his California associates that 
the Insurance Economics Society planned to wage similar cam¬ 
paigns in various states. “ He told specifically of one meeting in 
Detroit, attended by seven of the leading insurance financiers of 
the country, at which one million dollars ($1,000,000) was pledged 
for campaign and propaganda purposes.” 

Such is the man brought to this State to wage propagandist 
warfare in the name of “ Americanism ”! 

While the so-called League for Americanism was established 
last summer with a fund of between $100,000 and $200,000 at the 
outset, there is reason to believe that it has since received many other 
contributions of considerable size together with funds from certain 
contributors who believed they were giving money toward some 
patriotic object. Babcock has sedulously sought to conceal the fact 
that mainly the contributors to the League are certain upstate manu¬ 
facturers. He has refused on application to give the names of the 
officers of this so-called League for Americanism. He has even 
declined to name C. A. Chase as the organization’s treasurer, though 
it has been revealed elsewhere that C. A. Chase, of Syracuse, is the 
treasurer. 

To cover the real objects and activities of the Babcock organiza¬ 
tion, a well-known lecturer was recently started across the State 
to talk before trade groups and clubs on radicalism and its attendant 
evils. Certain individuals, stirred by the lectures, raised money 
for the purpose of continuing the lectures in various parts of the 
country. A check representing a sum of money contributed for this 
specific object was sent to the responsible financial officer of the 
so-called League for Americanism. This check was returned to the 
doner that it might be made payable to Babcock personally. When 
the lecturer, whose activities had been responsible for this particular 
contribution, learned what disposition was being made of the money 
he protested. To responsible officers of the so-called League for 
Americanism, he wrote letters and sent telegrams citing the fact 
that the money in question had been raised for a specific object and 


16 


asking if the League’s sponsors were going to consent to misap¬ 
propriation of funds. 

Subsequently the money in question was returned, and it was 
necessary for a financial officer of the so-called League for Ameri¬ 
canism to make the following formal admission: 

“ In answer to your letter, the Amsterdam funds have been re¬ 
turned to Mr.-—. This as I understand it closes the matter as 

far as the New York League for Americanism is concerned.” 

That the facts regarding the term “ Americanism,” as used by 
the Babcock organization may be fully understood, we cite the fol¬ 
lowing statement made by the lecturer who was formerly employed 
by the so-called “ League ” for Americanism: 

“ In the city of Amsterdam I was talking with a certain 
manufacturer and commented upon the work of the League for 
Americanism. At this he laughed, and said, ‘You know the 
Americanism part of it is a joke.’ I asked him what he meant. 
‘ The League for Americanism,’ he said, ‘ was organized primarily 
to kill off health insurance and other such fool legislation. The 
Americanism part of it is a catspaw.’ I was amazed and asked 
him how he knew that. ‘ I ought to know,’ he said, ‘ I helped 
organize the thing. Didn’t you know?’ I told him I didn’t 
know anything about what he had just told me and that I wasn’t 
working to kill off any legislation but for what I considered 
Americanism. ‘ Well, that’s the big idea,’ he said. ‘ You’ve saved 
the situation for us. You can go ahead and stir up sentiment 
on Americanism and other men will follow along after you to 
attend to the fool legislation.’ Then and there, as a result of 
this conversation, I said I was through with the so-called League 
for Americanism.” 

With regard to the methods of this Daly-Babcock “ League ” 
we cite another instance and in this matter, as in all others, have 
the evidence in our possession: 

In 1919, Babcock sought to employ an investigator who should 
commit himself in advance to the false and tricky views of the 
“ League ” regarding illness insurance, to accept a commission to 
go to England and from there write for American newspapers, 
articles to influence the “ rank and file ” of the working-class against 
the measure proposed in this State. It was specifically stipulated by 
Babcock in writing that the investigator should be “ in harmony with 
our views,” and in view of the manner in which this mission was to 
have been performed, it appears that the newspapers of this State 
would have innocently given space to the deliberately prejudiced 
findings of the “ League’s ” investigator without knowledge of the 
fact that he was a paid and biased emissary of this so-called League 


17 



for Americanism. Babcock’s attempt to get an investigator, qualified 
and disinterested, to prostitute himself to report adversely on the 
health insurance experience of England, was a failure. 

It should be noted in passing that the same Frederick L. Hoff¬ 
man of insurance connections, who assisted Babcock in California, 
later went to England and through the National Civic Federation 
and elsewhere is making adverse reports. 

While it has been the custom of certain insurance interests 
to move) Babcock from state to state to conduct his peculiarly 
insidious propaganda against any form of co-operative workmen’s 
illness insurance and similar measures, we are informed that in 
this case, however, Babcock “ has come to stay,” and that he and 
the so-called “ League ” for Americanism are to be inflicted upon 
New York State permanently. We understand that certain of 
Babcock’s sponsors are so well satisfied with the extent to which he 
has “ accelerated ” public opinion in this State that they plan to 
maintain the League permanently to wage its characteristic warfare 
against such legislative proposals as the League and its supporters 
may choose to consider un-American.” 

What citizens of this State whose Americanism is not a cloak 
to cover some private purposes of their own may think of this 
proposal, is well indicated in an editorial that appeared on Novem¬ 
ber 30 in the New York World under the title “ Un-American 
Americanism 

“ With headquarters in Syracuse, the New York 
League for Americanism calls for a 4 million volunteers 
to fight un-Americanism wherever it appears.’ In such 
a cause a million men may easily be enrolled if the people 
are satisfied of the League’s specific purposes. But its 
first task, we are told, is to fight—what? Bolshevism? 
Bomb-throwing? Mob rule? No! To fight compulsory 
health insurance! Thus this self-styled defender of 
American institutions begins by tooting its trumpet for 
the assault upon a measure praised by many Americans 
of the purest type, which can in no sense be called sub¬ 
versive or dangerous. 

“ A good American can advocate health insurance. 
Another good American can oppose it. A third may 
conclude that it might be advantageous if well adminis¬ 
tered, yet doubt if the state is up to the task. But any 
one of the three becomes un-American when he attempts 
to make this debatable issue a test of patriotism.” 

What may be expected of a “ League ” thus branded as un- 
American if it is made permanent? Using its tricky methods to 


18 


the utmost, the “ League ” has already gone into one political cam- 
paign, and we are informed that in a recent interview Babcock 
boasted of the “Leagued” success in this sphere. The spite that 
animates this so-called League for Americanism is clear from the 
following statement which, we are informed, Babcock made to the 
lecturer formerly in the employ of the “ League ”: 

“ You know we’re killing off members of the Legisla¬ 
ture who’ve been advocating the kind of legislation we’re 
against.” 

We deplore the extent to which certain interests have come to 
rely on irrelevant and provocative propaganda for their specifically 
private and even selfish purposes. We particularly deplore the 
present tendency of such propagandist organizations to cloak them¬ 
selves under the name of “ Americanism.” We know of no organi¬ 
zation that uses more un-American methods than this Daly-Babcock 
“ League,” and we regard it as one of the chief obstacles in this 
State to any genuine Americanism. 

It has misstated the effect and methods of operation of pro¬ 
posed industrial legislation. It has grossly exaggerated the cost. It 
has sought to lead industrial workers into believing that such meas¬ 
ures would do them harm and deprive them of their individual 
rights, while, at the same time, it has devoted itself to rousing 
class antagonism by inciting among the farmers a belief that they 
would be heavily taxed for a measure that would benefit only in¬ 
dustrial workers. 

It has misled physicians and prevailed upon them to organize 
under the auspices of the “ League ” into so-called “ Professional 
Guilds ” by creating the impression that professional fees under 
the proposed workmen’s co-operative illness insurance measure 
would be reduced as low as 50, 25, and even 6 cents, whereas it 
should be well known that the bill provides that professional 
fees shall be on a basis initiated by the various county medical 
societies. 

The “ League ” has associated itself with and brought into its 
scheme of operation individuals who have been given to the most 
inflammatory and unfounded statements and innuendoes. In the 
form of so-called “ boiler plate ” it has repeatedly distributed to 
the numerous daily and weekly up-State newspapers propagandist 
material as false and misleading as any that could be devised. 

The “ League ” has gained circulation for such statements not 
only through the press but through paid orators and has shown 
singular energy in hiring speakers to attack proposed industrial 
legislation on the basis of the League’s own tricky assertions. It has 
particularly sought to create the impression that such legislation 


19 


is of pro-German and Bolshevik origin, and this allegation, whether 
made by Babcock or by paid representatives of his “ League,” by 
members of the so-called professional guilds that operate under 
the auspices of his “ League,” or by certain Senators and Assem¬ 
blymen who derive political support from his “ League,” we de¬ 
nounce as unjustifiable and un-American, both untruthful and 
cowardly. 

V 

“Why Are These Women Backing the 
Welfare Measures? Not to Benefit Any 
Glass of People. They Lie if They Say 
So. It is All Part of the German 
Propaganda to Break Down the United 
States Government.” 

—From the Speech of Senator CLAYTON R. LUSK 
at Fulton, November 1. 


T HERE has been a singular conformity of method in the man¬ 
ner in which Senator Lusk of the Lusk Committee, Speaker 
Sweet and the so-called League for Americanism have sought to 
prejudice the public, in an inflammatory manner, against the pro¬ 
posed welfare bills. 

In some respects it must be said that Senator Lusk and Speaker 
Sweet have gone even further than the so-called League for Amer¬ 
icanism in seeking to arouse insidious conceptions of the proposed 
welfare measures and of the individuals who have supported them. 

We quote from notes made at the time of Senator Lusk’s speech 
at Fulton (November 1) in advocating Sweet’s reelection to the 
Assembly: 

“ It was German Kultur that started the peace 
societies during the war. Now the same men and 
women have organized societies for promoting radical¬ 
ism. It is a German Martens who is representing Bol¬ 
shevist Government in the United States. 

“ MR. SWEET’S OPPONENT, MISS DICKER- 
MAN, IS BEING FINANCED BY THE SAME DIS¬ 
LOYAL OUTFIT. They are the ones who advocate 
the overthrow of the Government of the United States 
by the confiscation of property belonging to the poor as 
well as the rich. You farmers here before me—you will 
have your very tools stolen from you. These are the 


20 



people who would overthrow marriages. They believe 
that every man and woman should consult their own 
immediate passions. They believe in no future life, no 
punishment for sin. 

“ WHY ARE THESE WOMEN BACKING THE 
WELFARE MEASURES? NOT TO BENEFIT ANY 
CLASS OF PEOPLE. THEY LIE IF THEY SAY 
SO. IT IS ALL PART OF THE GERMAN PROPA¬ 
GANDA TO BREAK DOWN THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT. . . . 

“ This Sweet campaign is not a local issue. Tad 
Sweet, Speaker—there’s only one State office ahead of it 
in power—the Governorship. 

“ If Tad Sweet is beaten it will not be regarded so 
much as the Republican party being beaten but Oswego 
County beaten,—you’ll lose your powerful officer. 

“ My God! What a calamity if he were beaten!” 


VI 


Concerning the Use Made of the Lusk 
Committee’s Prestige to Prejudice Pub¬ 
lic Opinion, in an Inflammatory Manner, 
Against Proposed Welfare Legislation 
and the Advocates of Such Legislation. 


DELIBERATE, undisguised and widespread effort has been 



l \ made to create the impression that well-considered and tem¬ 
perate legislative proposals for human welfare are “ symbolic ” of 
and in some way connected with Bolshevism. Speaker Sweet has 
made unqualified statements to that effect. We have already shown 
that the speakers, the pamphlets and the press propaganda of the 
so-called League for Americanism, backed by the Daly lobby and 
an inner group of the Associated Manufacturers and Merchants, 
has widely and generally availed itself of this method of misrepre¬ 
sentation. 

We are surprised and indignant now to find that, in the same 
way, the prestige of the Joint Legislative Committee to Inves¬ 
tigate Seditious Activities has been used to inculcate similar 
insidious conceptions with regard to these measures for human 
welfare and with regard to the advocates of these measures. 

From evidence in our possession it appears that the prestige of 
the Lusk Committee, backed either by public or private funds, has 


21 



been used in such a way as to stimulate the belief that the welfare 
bills are in some way connected with Bolshevism. From similar 
evidence it appears that some one presuming to speak for the Lusk 
Committee has even sought the financial aid of the unscrupulous, 
so-called League for Americanism, to further this kind of un¬ 
authorized and extraordinarily partisan propaganda. 

As early as August 21, 1919, the Western Newspaper Union, 
whose distributing list comprises 571 daily and weekly up-State 
newspapers, circulated in the form of “ boiler plate ” an article 
advertising the work of the Committee and a particular member 
of the Committee. Special attention is directed to this article be¬ 
cause the method of its distribution was exactly similar to that of 
an article which was likewise formally attributed to the Lusk Com¬ 
mittee and which used the prestige of the Committee to give added 
weight to an indiscriminate and prejudiced condemnation of the 
welfare bills. 

The printed copy of this “ boiler plate ” matter carried, as re¬ 
quired, a statement at the top as to the source and authorization 
of the article. This statement read: 

“ Plate of this matter is sent you without charge upon 

ORDER OF THE NEW YORK STATE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO 

Investigate Seditious Activities. Metal remains our property 

TO BE RETURNED IN THE USUAL MANNER. 

“ WESTERN NEWSPAPER UNION. 

“ Released for use on and after Thursday, August 21.” 

Similarly, without charge to recipients, the Western Newspaper 
Union distributed throughout the up state districts an article which 
purported to relate to alleged preliminary investigations of the Lusk 
Committee regarding Bolshevism. This article contained a pre¬ 
ponderating amount of matter in condemnation of the proposed 
welfare bills. The real object of the article was plainly something 
other than it purported to be, and the source of this article, as in 
the case of the article described above, was unqualifiedly attributed 
to the Lusk Committee. 

In the face of this stated responsibility of the Lusk Committee, 
we are surprised to find that in the headline of the article appeared 
the statement: “ Health Insurance Bad.” In the first column 
of the article appeared matter, mingled with what purported to be 
the result of preliminary investigations of the Lusk Committee, 
telling why the proposed measure for workmen’s cooperative illness 
insurance was “ bad.” In the second and third columns appeared 
statements regarding the Eight-hour and Living Wage bills to show 
that they were “ bad.” 

We have naturally been reluctant to believe that the Lusk Com- 


mittee or any member of the Lusk Committee could be responsible 
for using the Committee’s prestige or the Committee’s funds for 
such flagrant and unauthorized objects. We find that as recently 
as November 1, an article employing the same tricky methods of 
deception and prejudice as those devised by the so-called League for 
Americanism was distributed widely to the upstate newspapers. 
The extraordinary character of this article would seem to merit 
consideration in detail. 

The headline of this article, as it appeared in the Rochester 
Times of November 1, read: 

“ HEALTH BILL IS BOLSHEVISM, DECLARES LUSK— 
Chairman of Legislative Committee Says It Would Place 
Burden of Caring for the Improvident Upon Shoulders of 
Workers.” 

The “ lead ” of this article reads: 

“ New York, Nov. 1.—Senator Clayton R. Lusk, chair¬ 
man of the New Legislative Committee investigating 
Bolshevism and kindred subjects, intimates that so-called 
social welfare legislation, when ill-considered, was merely 
additional ammunition for the enemies of the nation who 
are also the enemies of society. Senator Lusk emphatically 
declares that there are traitors at work in this State, heavily 
financed and cunningly advised, whose avowed object is 
the overthrow of the present form of government. It was 
in this connection that Senator Lusk called attention to 
certain social welfare legislation as it has been proposed.” 

The balance of this long interview or statement was com¬ 
posed chiefly of a discussion of arguments against the measures 
providing for workmen’s cooperative illness insurance, for an 
eight-hour day for women and for a living wage for women. 
These arguments in that they were designed to prejudice work¬ 
ing men and women against such measures were of a kind 
exactly to satisfy the aim of the so-called League for American¬ 
ism in influencing the “ rank and file of the people.” The inter¬ 
view or statement by Senator Lusk closed with a laudation of 
Speaker Sweet which included the assertion that “ to lose the benefit 
of his experience in these critical times would be regarded as a 
calamity.” 

In an effort to ascertain the exact origin of and the respon¬ 
sibility for the distribution of the matter that mixed the alleged 
preliminary investigations of the Lusk Committee with an attack on 
the welfare bills, we obtained information indicating that the so- 
called League for Americanism might have been responsible. Ac¬ 
cordingly, we have inquired of Babcock, the secretary of this 


23 


innmlllB 

0 040 051 157 3 

“ League,” and find that even he resents the imputation of respon¬ 
sibility for the distribution of such extraordinary press matter. 

We give the substance of Babcock’s assertions in this connection: 

" THE LEAGUE FOR AMERICANISM DIDN’T PAY FOR 
IT, BUT I THINK I KNOW WHO DID. IT WAS PUT UP 
TO THE LEAGUE FOR AMERICANISM. WE HAD A 
CPIANCE TO PAY FOR IT, BUT WE DIDN’T. IT COULD 
HAVE BEEN MADE SO WE WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD 
TO PAY FOR IT. THE WAY IT WAS PUT UP IT WAS 
PARTISAN POLITICAL STUFF. 

“THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I EVER HEARD ANY¬ 
THING WAS WRONG WITH THE LUSK REPORT. NO, 
I’M NOT GOING TO TELL WHO DID PAY FOR IT UNTIL 
I KNOW MORE ABOUT WHO IT IS THAT’S CRITICIS¬ 
ING IT. IT WAS PARTISAN POLITICAL STUFF. WE 
DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.” 

The gravity of the assertions made by Babcock with regard 
to the distribution of matter which was unqualifiedly attributed to 
the Lusk Committee and which was obviously designed to achieve 
some object entirely unrelated to the authorized objects of the 
Lusk Committee, is such that we would be reluctant to give full 
credence to the assertions made by him and quoted above. In view 
of his assertions, however, we feel obliged to ask: 

What responsibility had the Lusk Committee or any member of 
the Lusk Committee or any person associated with the Lusk Com¬ 
mittee for the distribution of matter referring to so-called Lusk 
investigations and designed to inflame public opinion against the 
chief welfare measures and their advocates? What funds, public 
or private, were used to pay for such misleading publicity of a kind 
utterly remote from the authorized objects of the Joint Legislative 
Committee to Investigate Seditious Activities? 

Conclusion 

We declare our indignation at the trickeries and deceptions 
we have fotmd through our contact with political life. Our pro¬ 
test is the more unqualified in that we find such subterfuge used 
to hamper human progress and to make impossible a reasoned 
adjustment of problems confronting the State. 

We are fully aware of the grave implications of the conditions 
outlined above, and, at any proper time or place, we are prepared 
to make public the many additional facts and data now in our 
possession. Meanwhile, we trust and believe that the sense of 
responsibility of the Legislature and of the people must be too 
great for them to permit such unwarranted conditions to con¬ 
tinue. 


24 



